Replacement RAF AWACS

Not free, they may have been funded by us originally so only reallocation of debt
The UK contribution to the NAEWCF is/was via our jets and personnel so we've never paid for any NATO 'stuff.'

Iirc, the consoles on the bent jet were written off by NATO and were due to be scrapped. However, we checked them and realised they were fine for use in the sim once they'd been modified to E-3D standard (different comms panel). That allowed 7 sim consoles to be removed, have the oxygen system plumbing added, and used as a tenth console on our jets!

To the best of my knowledge, we never paid a penny for them as NATO considered them scrap! :)

Regards,
MM
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
Reallocation of nato debt then, I wonder where their money comes from? Maybe a bit like the Eu and our governments magic money trees
 

Yokel

LE
The UK contribution to the NAEWCF is/was via our jets and personnel so we've never paid for any NATO 'stuff.'

Iirc, the consoles on the bent jet were written off by NATO and were due to be scrapped. However, we checked them and realised they were fine for use in the sim once they'd been modified to E-3D standard (different comms panel). That allowed 7 sim consoles to be removed, have the oxygen system plumbing added, and used as a tenth console on our jets!

To the best of my knowledge, we never paid a penny for them as NATO considered them scrap! :)

Regards,
MM
So crash damaged systems were not put back in operational aircraft then? Not so much to worry about then.

Reallocation of nato debt then, I wonder where their money comes from? Maybe a bit like the Eu and our governments magic money trees
Donald Trump walt!
 
I am sure the tail plane from that crashed jet is on a plinth at GK. Did a deployment training course there few years ago and wondered where it came from.
GK......weird place i thought but awesome transit accomm with free internet!
 
Laughingly while on the subject of AWACS ...Saab has a cost effective solution called Global Eye. i saw the UAE new Saab Global Eye which uses Bombardier Global Express airframe as it’s platform, few weeks back at DAS2019 so here are my photos.

cheers

CEEE065F-D5A9-4148-A075-0EE7341DDDCB.jpeg
76E1284E-0ABB-449E-B84A-738C5B0B1A1A.jpeg
0061D9B1-053C-423A-950A-269D98A9D1AC.jpeg
25778FFF-B232-45F8-8866-D83B674B90E2.jpeg
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Laughingly while on the subject of AWACS ...Saab has a cost effective solution called Global Eye. i saw the UAE new Saab Global Eye which uses Bombardier Global Express airframe as it’s platform, few weeks back at DAS2019 so here are my photos.

cheers

View attachment 435743View attachment 435744View attachment 435745View attachment 435746
It's more of an AEW platform tbh rather than a true AWACS. From the latter perspective, it doesn't have many operators (so lacks the C2 capacity we need) and lacks 360 degree coverage.

It's also not that cheap!

Regards,
MM
 
It's more of an AEW platform tbh rather than a true AWACS. From the latter perspective, it doesn't have many operators (so lacks the C2 capacity we need) and lacks 360 degree coverage.

It's also not that cheap!

Regards,
MM
If I recall correctly, we already discussed this one earlier in this thread. I believe it has an option where it transmits the data to a ground station and the actual command and control can take place there instead of using the plane's own operators.

As I seem to recall, it may be suitable for a small country which is primarily concerned with local air defence and where it can be closely integrated into the overall air defence system. The example in the photo is one apparently belonging to the UAE, and this probably describes their needs rather closely. It's probably not as well suited to operating over countries with large geographic expanses or to operating abroad.

Being based on a smaller plane, I suspect that it has lower operating costs, including fuel, maintenance, and crews. We previously discussed a Canadian study on fighter jets which showed that operating costs were the bulk of lifetime total costs, and I suspect that this is even more true in this case.

However, as noted above, it's not a one size fits all solution, nor is it intended to be, and not really something that the UK would likely find much use for unless the UK were to undergo a very drastic change in foreign and defence policy to a degree which is improbable to occur.
 
If I recall correctly, we already discussed this one earlier in this thread. I believe it has an option where it transmits the data to a ground station and the actual command and control can take place there instead of using the plane's own operators...
All AEW&C can have been able to do that for decades! However, the original Saab 340 Erieye was uniquely operated by the Swedish AF with only an Air Technician down the back.

However, there's a reason why mission crews are carried if you want to conduct anything but very basic, defensive C2 and Saab quickly moved away from the original concept in all subsequent iterations of the Erieye. I understand that Global Eye has a mission crew of up to 5.

...Being based on a smaller plane, I suspect that it has lower operating costs, including fuel, maintenance, and crews...
I'd agree generically in terms of the operating costs of a smaller type. But in this case, you must remember that the E-7 is based on a variant of the World's most ubiquitous commercial airliner, with all the logistics and support benefits that entails.

Ultimately, as you say, Global Eye platform is a very good defensive AEW&C asset with a degree of wider ISR capability. However, it's of limited use for those countries who have greater needs and typically operate E-3 and E-7 variants.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
If I recall correctly, we already discussed this one earlier in this thread. I believe it has an option where it transmits the data to a ground station and the actual command and control can take place there instead of using the plane's own operators.

As I seem to recall, it may be suitable for a small country which is primarily concerned with local air defence and where it can be closely integrated into the overall air defence system. The example in the photo is one apparently belonging to the UAE, and this probably describes their needs rather closely. It's probably not as well suited to operating over countries with large geographic expanses or to operating abroad.

Being based on a smaller plane, I suspect that it has lower operating costs, including fuel, maintenance, and crews. We previously discussed a Canadian study on fighter jets which showed that operating costs were the bulk of lifetime total costs, and I suspect that this is even more true in this case.

However, as noted above, it's not a one size fits all solution, nor is it intended to be, and not really something that the UK would likely find much use for unless the UK were to undergo a very drastic change in foreign and defence policy to a degree which is improbable to occur.
Also better suited to applications where the threat comes from a known direction.
 
Laughingly while on the subject of AWACS ...Saab has a cost effective solution called Global Eye. i saw the UAE new Saab Global Eye which uses Bombardier Global Express airframe as it’s platform, few weeks back at DAS2019 so here are my photos.

cheers

View attachment 435743View attachment 435744View attachment 435745View attachment 435746

Or we could by an AWACS in service and with a funded development path operated by a Tier 1 Allie, Australia, that also uses the F-35, P-8 and will soon add the Type 26 Frigate
 

Mattb

LE
So crash damaged systems were not put back in operational aircraft then? Not so much to worry about then.
Unless I’m misunderstanding, the crashed bits ended up in a ground simulator, and bits from the sim ended up on active aircraft.
 
All AEW&C can have been able to do that for decades! However, the original Saab 340 Erieye was uniquely operated by the Swedish AF with only an Air Technician down the back.

However, there's a reason why mission crews are carried if you want to conduct anything but very basic, defensive C2 and Saab quickly moved away from the original concept in all subsequent iterations of the Erieye. I understand that Global Eye has a mission crew of up to 5.



I'd agree generically in terms of the operating costs of a smaller type. But in this case, you must remember that the E-7 is based on a variant of the World's most ubiquitous commercial airliner, with all the logistics and support benefits that entails.

Ultimately, as you say, Global Eye platform is a very good defensive AEW&C asset with a degree of wider ISR capability. However, it's of limited use for those countries who have greater needs and typically operate E-3 and E-7 variants.

Regards,
MM
This seems to be an interesting alternative as well. But I agree, not everything can suit everybody.

 
This seems to be an interesting alternative as well. But I agree, not everything can suit everybody.

This is an earlier but less capable version of the Erieye sensor fitted to Global Eye.

Regards,
MM
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
This was all gone over pages back. There's good reason why we went for the Wedgetail - chiefly, that it's the only option that gives us the capabilities we need.
 
This was all gone over pages back. There's good reason why we went for the Wedgetail - chiefly, that it's the only option that gives us the capabilities we need.
In fairness, I don't think anyone (other than Airbus and the HCDSC) was suggesting otherwise.

Regards,
MM
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
In fairness, I don't think anyone (other than Airbus and the HCDSC) was suggesting otherwise.

Regards,
MM
I think quite a number of posters on the thread were throwing up some of the other options and saying, 'What about this?"

To the uninitiated, some of the biz-jet options look sleek and sexy and you did a good job up-thread of explaining why Wedgetail was the only game in town.

The posts from @Raven2008 and @redshift looked to be taking us off around all sides of the coin again.
 
The Corbyn Alternative....

View attachment 435843
Errm, why aren't two of them dusky, to reflect the Dear Leader's approved ethnic mix in the USKSR?

It looks like one of them is sitting down, so at least the disabled quota appears to be filled but I'm confused as to which of them sup from the furry cup.

Reported for racism and homophobia.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top